Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:29:39 +0000 | From | Conor Dooley <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v12 1/2] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver |
| |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:03:13PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:04:33PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 05:38:26PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 05:49:50PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > Hello Conor, > > > > > > Hello Uwe, > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:35:12AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > + > > > > > +static void mchp_core_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > > > + bool enable, u64 period) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); > > > > > + u8 channel_enable, reg_offset, shift; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * There are two adjacent 8 bit control regs, the lower reg controls > > > > > + * 0-7 and the upper reg 8-15. Check if the pwm is in the upper reg > > > > > + * and if so, offset by the bus width. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + reg_offset = MCHPCOREPWM_EN(pwm->hwpwm >> 3); > > > > > + shift = pwm->hwpwm & 7; > > > > > + > > > > > + channel_enable = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + reg_offset); > > > > > + channel_enable &= ~(1 << shift); > > > > > + channel_enable |= (enable << shift); > > > > > + > > > > > + writel_relaxed(channel_enable, mchp_core_pwm->base + reg_offset); > > > > > + mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled &= ~BIT(pwm->hwpwm); > > > > > + mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled |= enable << pwm->hwpwm; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * Notify the block to update the waveform from the shadow registers. > > > > > + * The updated values will not appear on the bus until they have been > > > > > + * applied to the waveform at the beginning of the next period. We must > > > > > + * write these registers and wait for them to be applied before > > > > > + * considering the channel enabled. > > > > > + * If the delay is under 1 us, sleep for at least 1 us anyway. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) { > > > > > + u64 delay; > > > > > + > > > > > + delay = div_u64(period, 1000u) ? : 1u; > > > > > + writel_relaxed(1U, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD); > > > > > + usleep_range(delay, delay * 2); > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > In some cases the delay could be prevented. e.g. when going from one > > > > disabled state to another. If you don't want to complicate the driver > > > > here, maybe point it out in a comment at least? > > > > > > Maybe this is my naivity talking, but I'd rather wait. Is there not the > > > chance that we re-enter pwm_apply() before the update has actually gone > > > through? > > > > My idea was to do something like that: > > > > int mchp_core_pwm_apply(....) > > { > > if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) { > > /* > > * We're still waiting for an update, don't > > * interfer until it's completed. > > */ > > while (readl_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD)) { > > cpu_relax(); > > if (waited_unreasonably_long()) > > return -ETIMEOUT; > > } > > } > > > > update_period_and_duty(...); > > return 0; > > }
So I was doing some fiddling, and the following works reasonably well: if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) { u32 delay = MCHPCOREPWM_TIMEOUT_US; u32 sync_upd; int ret;
writel_relaxed(1u, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD);
ret = read_poll_timeout(readl, sync_upd, !sync_upd, delay/100, delay, false, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD); if (ret) dev_dbg(mchp_core_pwm->chip.dev, "timed out waiting for shadow register sync\n"); }
but...
> > This way you don't have to wait at all if the calls to pwm_apply() are > > infrequent. Of course this only works this way, if you can determine if > > there is a pending update. > > Ah I think I get what you mean now about waiting for completion & > reading the bit. I don't know off the top of my head if that bit is > readable. Docs say that they're R/W but I don't know if that means that > an AXI read works or if the value is actually readable. I'll try > something like this if I can.
...it does not implement what I think you suggested & comes with the drawback of inconsistent behaviour depending on whether the timeout is hit or not.
Instead, waiting in apply(), as you suggested, & get_state() looks to be the better option, using the same sort of logic as above, say: static int mchp_core_pwm_wait_for_sync_update(struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm, unsigned int channel) { int ret;
/* * If a shadow register is used for this PWM channel, and iff there is * a pending update to the waveform, we must wait for it to be applied * before attempting to read its state, as reading the registers yields * the currently implemented settings, the new ones are only readable * once the current period has ended. * * Rather large delays are possible, in the seconds, so to avoid waiting * around for **too** long - cap the wait at 100 ms. */ if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << channel)) { u32 delay = MCHPCOREPWM_TIMEOUT_US; u32 sync_upd;
writel_relaxed(1u, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD);
ret = read_poll_timeout(readl, sync_upd, !sync_upd, delay/100, delay, false, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD); if (ret) return -ETIMEDOUT; }
return 0; }
I think that strikes a good balance? We return quickly & don't blocker the caller, but simultaneously try to prevent them from either trying to apply new settings or get the current settings until the last request has gone though?
get_state() returns void though, is it valid behaviour to wait for the timeout there? I had a check in the core code and found some places where the call in looks like: struct pwm_state s1, s2; chip->ops->get_state(chip, pwm, &s1); In this case, exiting early would leave us with a completely wrong idead of the state, if it was to time out.
Either way, it seems like either way we would be misleading the caller of get_state() - perhaps the way around that is to do the wait & then just carry on with get_state()? In that scenario, you'd get the new settings where possible and the old ones otherwise. Returning if the timeout is hit would give you the new settings where possible & otherwise you'd get whatever was passed to get_state(). I'm not really sure which of those two situations would be preferred?
Thanks, Conor.
| |